skatingtripods wrote:FWIW, I don't think Vizquel gets in. I don't think the voting committee will weigh his defense heavily enough to get 75% of the vote.

Which I don't understand. One way or the other he gets in. How long it takes is just a guess. To me being the very best at your position which Vizquel was at least for his era while still being very good offensively is certainly as valid as someone who was very good offensively but average or even ham fisted in the field.

Chicks may dig the long ball but voters should take everything into consideration. Perhaps most do and it's my perception that is wrong.

I'm not sure how people will evaluate him as a hitter. Obviously he doesn't have the kind of numbers the HOF is accustomed to, but he was a contact hitter with no power who just happened to be an elite defender. I think if he had gotten to that 3000-hit plateau, I'd think he had a much stronger case.

He's 10th in career defensive WAR, and 40th among the top 500 SS in JAWS, which is a metric created by Jay Jaffe that takes a player's 7-year peak WAR and compares it side-by-side with other players at a player's position. It's something that HOF voters do use to determine HOF worthiness. There are 21 SS in the HOF.

I think he'll generate a lot of debate.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

skatingtripods wrote:I'm not sure how people will evaluate him as a hitter. Obviously he doesn't have the kind of numbers the HOF is accustomed to, but he was a contact hitter with no power who just happened to be an elite defender. I think if he had gotten to that 3000-hit plateau, I'd think he had a much stronger case.

He would be first ballot.

He's 10th in career defensive WAR, and 40th among the top 500 SS in JAWS, which is a metric created by Jay Jaffe that takes a player's 7-year peak WAR and compares it side-by-side with other players at a player's position. It's something that HOF voters do use to determine HOF worthiness. There are 21 SS in the HOF.

I think he'll generate a lot of debate.

Numbers do not quantify how exciting it was to watch him play. We were extremely lucky to see Alomar and Vizquel play together. I think defense gets shorted by the voters.

Numbers do not quantify how exciting it was to watch him play. We were extremely lucky to see Alomar and Vizquel play together. I think defense gets shorted by the voters.

No, but numbers are how some voters determine their votes. Also, some voters will hold the strength of the 90s lineups against Omar, citing that his offensive statistics are inflated by who was around him. I'm not endorsing or dissenting that opinion, but somebody will justify not voting for by using that logic.

Regarding the defense point, I'll say this: Those who are in favor of Bonds getting into the HOF cite his plus offense AND plus defense as a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Once upon a time, he was a well above average OF. Obviously not so much once he blew up in size, but I have read opinions from people that he was on a HOF track even before steroids.

Robbie Alomar was a great offensive player for his position as well. Omar posted a .731 OPS over his 11 years in Cleveland, which is decidedly above league average for SS from 1994-2004.

I'm really not sure. As I said, I think he'll merit a lot of debate and if he gets in, I don't think it's by a large margin, not that it matters.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

Numbers do not quantify how exciting it was to watch him play. We were extremely lucky to see Alomar and Vizquel play together. I think defense gets shorted by the voters.

No, but numbers are how some voters determine their votes. Also, some voters will hold the strength of the 90s lineups against Omar, citing that his offensive statistics are inflated by who was around him. I'm not endorsing or dissenting that opinion, but somebody will justify not voting for by using that logic.

Regarding the defense point, I'll say this: Those who are in favor of Bonds getting into the HOF cite his plus offense AND plus defense as a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Once upon a time, he was a well above average OF. Obviously not so much once he blew up in size, but I have read opinions from people that he was on a HOF track even before steroids.

Robbie Alomar was a great offensive player for his position as well. Omar posted a .731 OPS over his 11 years in Cleveland, which is decidedly above league average for SS from 1994-2004.

I'm really not sure. As I said, I think he'll merit a lot of debate and if he gets in, I don't think it's by a large margin, not that it matters.

I think he meant first ballot with 3000 hits, I'd agree in that case. IMO it will take him 2 -3 ballots for sure.

Another area I think comes into play is how the position seemed to change offensively at least in terms of power, IIRC it seemed to really take off during Omar's time. I think it would be easy to hold that against him, but I think that is a lazy point of debate and I personally don't think that will be held against him.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Numbers do not quantify how exciting it was to watch him play. We were extremely lucky to see Alomar and Vizquel play together. I think defense gets shorted by the voters.

No, but numbers are how some voters determine their votes. Also, some voters will hold the strength of the 90s lineups against Omar, citing that his offensive statistics are inflated by who was around him. I'm not endorsing or dissenting that opinion, but somebody will justify not voting for by using that logic.

Regarding the defense point, I'll say this: Those who are in favor of Bonds getting into the HOF cite his plus offense AND plus defense as a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Once upon a time, he was a well above average OF. Obviously not so much once he blew up in size, but I have read opinions from people that he was on a HOF track even before steroids.

Robbie Alomar was a great offensive player for his position as well. Omar posted a .731 OPS over his 11 years in Cleveland, which is decidedly above league average for SS from 1994-2004.

I'm really not sure. As I said, I think he'll merit a lot of debate and if he gets in, I don't think it's by a large margin, not that it matters.

No chance if he had 3000 hits? Granted it hasn't worked for Biggio but being the best at your position for a long time and getting 3000 hits should be more than enough.

The point that he played in an era that many voters would like to ignore is something that will work against him. Unfortunately there will be some more willing to vote for Thome because of his 500 HR's than Vizquel despite like Thomas, Thome spent much of his career on the bench.

Vizquel will get in sooner or later. Maybe it takes the veterans committee but he gets in.

FUDU wrote:I think he meant first ballot with 3000 hits, I'd agree in that case. IMO it will take him 2 -3 ballots for sure.

I see that now. My mistake 1P.

Another area I think comes into play is how the position seemed to change offensively at least in terms of power, IIRC it seemed to really take off during Omar's time. I think it would be easy to hold that against him, but I think that is a lazy point of debate and I personally don't think that will be held against him.

What the what? I get that we're Indians' homers, but you're way overselling Omar's offense.

Vizquel had a 82 OPS+ and a rBat of -246. That's 246 runs below an average offensive player. I know some people are adverse to advanced metrics here, but the work done with offensive numbers is spot on. Ozzie Smith had an 87 OPS+ and rBat of -117. Smith was over 100 runs better on offense. He just played in his prime in an era where offense was seriously surpressed while Vizquel was in a juiced-ball era. Vizquel had a couple good offensive years, but he was generally a negative on the offensive end, even compared to Ozzie Smith.

motherscratcher wrote:Omar might make it in some day, but no way does he make it on the first ballot.

I can't imagine he does either. IMO he deserves as much consideration as a Frank Thomas though who played much of his career on the bench.

I love Omar. A lot. It was such a joy watching him play every day. But Frank Thomas? Let's not get carried away.

I'm with you mo. But let me ask this, historically speaking was Frank better offensively than Omar was defensively? I ask seriously b/c I have not really ever looked at it that way before and am not sure either way without putting my energy into it than I feel like now.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

What the what? I get that we're Indians' homers, but you're way overselling Omar's offense.

Vizquel had a 82 OPS+ and a rBat of -246. That's 246 runs below an average offensive player. I know some people are adverse to advanced metrics here, but the work done with offensive numbers is spot on. Ozzie Smith had an 87 OPS+ and rBat of -117. Smith was over 100 runs better on offense. He just played in his prime in an era where offense was seriously surpressed while Vizquel was in a juiced-ball era. Vizquel had a couple good offensive years, but he was generally a negative on the offensive end, even compared to Ozzie Smith.

Smith is also a much better fielder by the metrics, with 15 more dWAR than Vizquel and over 100 more runs saved. Defensive metrics are undoubtedly flawed, but those are sizable gaps, flawed or not.

In Vizquel's defense, he was a far worse offensive player after 40. He was decidedly better than league average for his position over his 11 years with the Indians.

That's what I'm saying, though. The saber-inclined voters start to get votes later this decade and into the 2020s. Are they going to bat for Omar? Will the old school crowd even vote for him?

I honestly don't know. I think he has a strong case, but far from an airtight case.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

skatingtripods wrote:Smith is also a much better fielder by the metrics, with 15 more dWAR than Vizquel and over 100 more runs saved. Defensive metrics are undoubtedly flawed, but those are sizable gaps, flawed or not.

In Vizquel's defense, he was a far worse offensive player after 40. He was decidedly better than league average for his position over his 11 years with the Indians.

That's what I'm saying, though. The saber-inclined voters start to get votes later this decade and into the 2020s. Are they going to bat for Omar? Will the old school crowd even vote for him?

I honestly don't know. I think he has a strong case, but far from an airtight case.

Cutting off both Smith and Vizquel after age 39 seasons, Smith is still 50 runs better with the bat. It's a huge difference. Looking at his 11 seasons in Cleveland, he had a 90 OPS+, to compare, Smith's 11 year prime would have a 97 OPS+. Smith is still clearly better with the bat. Vizquel may have been acceptable with the bat for a shortstop, but not for a Hall of Famer, he would have a serious case for the absolute worst bat in Cooperstown if he were to make it.

It's not the greatest idea to use Ozzie Smith as a measuring stick. Ozzie was better offensively, better defensively, faster, stronger arm, more range, had big postseason moments and won championships.

Perhaps if Vizquel drove a few more runs in he wouldn't a had to rat out Mesa.

But really, you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything Vizquel does better than Ozzie.

75% is a big number if you don't hit. History has taught us this. Now whether that's right or wrong can be a debate, but as it stand now, it's the way it is.

FUDU wrote:I think he meant first ballot with 3000 hits, I'd agree in that case. IMO it will take him 2 -3 ballots for sure.

I see that now. My mistake 1P.

Another area I think comes into play is how the position seemed to change offensively at least in terms of power, IIRC it seemed to really take off during Omar's time. I think it would be easy to hold that against him, but I think that is a lazy point of debate and I personally don't think that will be held against him.

motherscratcher wrote:Omar might make it in some day, but no way does he make it on the first ballot.

I can't imagine he does either. IMO he deserves as much consideration as a Frank Thomas though who played much of his career on the bench.

I love Omar. A lot. It was such a joy watching him play every day. But Frank Thomas? Let's not get carried away.

I'm with you mo. But let me ask this, historically speaking was Frank better offensively than Omar was defensively? I ask seriously b/c I have not really ever looked at it that way before and am not sure either way without putting my energy into it than I feel like now.

My argument is Thomas spent much of his career on the bench. I'm not arguing he doesn't have the numbers, I'm personally not as big of a fan of part timers getting in which would make it hard for me as a voter to vote for Thomas but not Biggio.

skatingtripods wrote:Smith is also a much better fielder by the metrics, with 15 more dWAR than Vizquel and over 100 more runs saved. Defensive metrics are undoubtedly flawed, but those are sizable gaps, flawed or not.

In Vizquel's defense, he was a far worse offensive player after 40. He was decidedly better than league average for his position over his 11 years with the Indians.

That's what I'm saying, though. The saber-inclined voters start to get votes later this decade and into the 2020s. Are they going to bat for Omar? Will the old school crowd even vote for him?

I honestly don't know. I think he has a strong case, but far from an airtight case.

Cutting off both Smith and Vizquel after age 39 seasons, Smith is still 50 runs better with the bat. It's a huge difference. Looking at his 11 seasons in Cleveland, he had a 90 OPS+, to compare, Smith's 11 year prime would have a 97 OPS+. Smith is still clearly better with the bat. Vizquel may have been acceptable with the bat for a shortstop, but not for a Hall of Famer, he would have a serious case for the absolute worst bat in Cooperstown if he were to make it.

I'm not going to run the numbers but off the top of my head, Mazeroski and Rizzuto has to give him a run for that title.

1Perry wrote: I'm not going to run the numbers but off the top of my head, Mazeroski and Rizzuto has to give him a run for that title.

Rizzuto with a a 93 OPS+, and missed three years of his prime because of WW2 has to clearly be the better hitter. Mazeroski, who wouldn't be in without the 1960 home run would be his top competition though.

I just dislike that offense is weighed far more than defense IMO

And this is because offense is worth a lot more than defense when it comes to position players. Frank Thomas' rBat, the value he provided just from hitting: 688. The career leader in rField, the value provided on defense, Brooks Robinson: 293. There's just many more opportunities for a position player to win games with his bat than his glove.

Glad I clicked on this thread. Lots of great dialogue. Regarding Biggio, I look at him sort of like Don Sutton. A really good player that, over the course of a long career, put up one of the Hall's hallowed stats. For Sutton it was the 300 wins, for Biggio the 3000 hits. It took Sutton, I believe, 4 votes to get in and it'll probably take Biggio around the same.

Next years vote will be Pitcher heavy too. Randy Johnson, Pedro, and probably Smoltz will get in. The best newly eligible position player is Nomar, who I think may get in some day but definitely not on his first ballot.

By the way, me and a buddy are going to go to the Induction Ceremony this year. Never been to Cooperstown. I'm sure I'll tear up at some point because Baseball, when I was young, was everything to me.

Cooperstown is awesome! Have a great time. I walked around with my mouth alternating between wide-open and silly grin. And the year I was there the Indians main display case was Right There down the hallway as I approached that particular room. It's been a while so the details are fuzzy, but it was as if the Tribe were waiting for me to get there so they could greet me. I hope my hubby and I can make a stop there before we move back to OH. From where we live now it's less than half the distance we'd have to drive from OH. Plus he's never been. He's not a big baseball fan (gasp!) but he'd still like to go. Once.

I've tried 'em all, I really have, and the only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the Church of Baseball.~~~Annie Savoy-"Bull Durham"